Statements like "growing and changing so they don't become stagnant" really really piss me off. Anyone with the good fortune to have the opportunity to work on Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, Superman, Batman, etc etc etc has been handed a PERFECT canvas on which to paint. These characters have lasted as long as they have because through some incredible stroke of combined luck and talent, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Gardner Fox, Bill Finger, Siegel and Shuster, and a bunch of others managed to create perfect archetypes upon which is based a modern sort of mythology which we call the superhero story. These concepts, in all their brilliant simplicity have endless potential to be the springboards from which countless stories can be told. These are not designed as finite novels, but as continuing serial fiction. There is almost no limit to the number and variety of tales to be told about these amazing characters. To think about the Fantastic Four, for example, makes one's head spin to consider the potential placed in this concept. I don't see anything "stagnant" about any of these creations! If some stagnancy is seen by some, it is the fault of the so-called fans who don't realize what these characters were endowed with upon creation, and the fault of short-sighted creators lacking the imagination to take these treasures with which they have been entrusted and just "run with it."  These characters can literaly write themselves, with just a little "push" from those who get to play in the sandbox. If someone can't think of anything to do with these characters that doesn't involve mutilating the concepts in the interests of "growth and change" then something is wrong with the writers, not with the characters and not with the concepts. 

"Growth and change" when applied to long-term, serialized characters, must inevitably be undone in order to allow the concept to continue. Good storytelling and imaginative plots never need undoing. Trying to prevent this imagined "stagnancy" only makes the job of utilizing these characters much more difficult than it has to be.

That's fine, Matt, but your post was, "What is Hero Realm and why should I care?", not "Why should I care that somebody I never heard of drops Spider-Man?"

Either way, no harm, no foul.

QUOTE: These characters have lasted as long as they have because through some incredible stroke of combined luck and talent, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Gardner Fox, Bill Finger, Siegel and Shuster, and a bunch of others managed to create perfect archetypes upon which is based a modern sort of mythology which we call the superhero story.

That, and not being afraid to mess with the formula when necessary.  Superman of the 80s was a very different beast than the Superman of the 60s which was a different beast than the Superman of the 40s, etc.  The standard argument is that change is okay as long as it doesn't "violate the core of the character," but what exactly does that mean?  Beyond that, the question is how to handle those changes - organically within the current continuity, or by bulldozing and starting over.  Both approaches have their merits.

As far as reboots go, I'm more for total than partial but I just can't see the editorial environment at Marvel doing it in a way that will actually appeal to the folks here (including me).  Too many "fans turned pros" who will want to recreate those "classic stories" and too many editors who would be happy to let them.  And honestly, having read the first few years of the Ultimate line and the work of those who seem to be Marvel's current "A list," the folks most likely to get the keys to the kingdom are the last ones who I'd want in charge of telling the stories. 

Here's an interesting retrospective of Peter and Mary Jane's wedding in 1987 (along with a link to a youtube video of the "live" version!):

http://www.comics101.com/?page=C101

The only problem I have with that article is that, while it's true they weren't seeing each other romatically at the time, in many ways they were closer than ever, notably in the issues where MJ told Peter all about her past (#259) and Peter later returned the favor (#275).  By the time of the marriage, she was a pretty active part of the supporting cast.  It's not like Peter just out of the blue thought, "Hmmm... I haven't seen MJ in a few years... wonder if she wants to get married?"

But speaking of retrospectives, check out Back Issue #23 for a creators roundtable on the issue.  The majority of the creative types are on the "worst - idea - ever" side, with others being in the middle and Jim Salicrup and Stan Lee covering the pro-side.  (Heck, Stan even suggested they have a kid the next time the folks at Marvel want to shake things up!)